Jump to content

Talk:Voice over IP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

VoIP is not IP Telephony (although they are similar!)

[edit]

Before anyone bites my head off I would just like to mention that I am a telecoms professional with over 22years experience in Legacy AND IP Communications.

Please refer to the Eupac IP Network Solutions site [[1]] for a lovely simplistic description of the difference between the two.

"Yet it is important to distinguish between VoIP, which is a digital transport vehicle for phone calls, and IP telephony, which is a digital phone system based on internet standards. This is important, because business stands to benefit from both VoIP and IP telephony – in substantially different ways. VoIP is a method of digitising your voice so that it can be transmitted across the Internet to save call charges. Whereas IP Telephony is a way of digitising your phone system so that it can leverage the Internet, your computer, and your other business software applications (CRM, CTI, Outlook) to increase productivity within the Business. VoIP is actually a subset of IP Telephony."

Or put even more simply:

- IP Telephony is the carriage of telephone calls over IP based networks. 

         o Voice quality target is telephone call quality, no better, no worse
         o Attempt at making calling procedure and dialing same as PSTN
         o Attempt at supporting various PSTN features and functionality

- VoIP is the carriage of any voice signal over IP based networks. 

         o Voice quality can be designed according to the applications need.
         o Design for features and functionality as needed by the application
         o Next step to Multi-media over IP
         o Definition can be extended to include all audio, e.g., music

Some of us "dinosaurs" have been around long enough to know where both technologies began, where they came from and where they are going ;-)

Cheers,

Bluemavryk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemavryk (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I'm going to try to post my feelings on this issue because it really matters to me.

I agree & disagree with Bluemavryk at the same time. There is a distinction between VoIP and IP Telephony in the industry as it stands today. The way I see it:

IP Telephony Refers to:

  • A coherent implementation of an IP-based telephony system that consists of endpoints, and their related infrastructure.
  • Said Implementation is intended to provide direct access to telephony services to an end-user community
  • Can be used to replace traditional (TDM, POTS) telephony services.

VoIP Refers to:

  • The constellation of protocols and methodologies that provide for the transmission of voice across IP networks.
  • The set of generally accepted practices used in accomplishing said transmission.
  • Any hardware necessary to accomplish said transmission.

In general: If you are utilizing IP-based transmission methods to deliver voice to an endpoint, you are using VoIP. If your transmission method is VoIP end-to-end within a given implementation, you are using IP Telephony.

I would like to see less of the discussion of commercial VoIP and how it is provided (or at least a re-org) and more discussion of the underlying technologies behind VoIP. I think we can structure this article better in this fashion:

Intro

  • History
  • Technology
    • Signalling Protocols
      • H323
      • SIP
      • MGCP\MEGACO
      • SCCP
      • Proprietary/Vendor Specific (NEC, Nortel, etc.)
    • Speech Protocols
      • RTP
    • Codecs
      • G711
      • G729
      • iLBC (Skype, among others, uses this particular method of encoding voice for transmission across the Internet)
      • G723
  • Implementations
    • Home/SoHo Use
    • Replacing PABX Leased-Line Ties (Network Convergence)
    • Replacing Traditional PABX's Wholesale
    • CO Use (Softswitches/Interoffice Ties)
  • Challenges
    • QOS
    • Sound Quality vis-a-vis Lossy Codecs


I'm sure there's more fertile ground to be found somewhere. This is all I can come up with for right now on this subject, I know I'll think of something more to add later.

Please, someone give me another pair of eyes and let me know what sounds good! QuackCD (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree QuackCD, this article is in serious need of a complete rewrite. I can see where you are going with your proposed TOC, however I would say that many subjects like protocols and codecs are already covered in detail on wikipedia and don't need repeating here (just listing and linking would be enough).

VoIP is a concept (sending voice over IP networks) not a protocol (I would state that the misunderstanding between a concept, protocol and architecture is the main reason the current page is so poor). The page should concentrate on what VoIP means (voice communication over IP networks) and cite examples of how to achieve this with relivant links to other articles. Rather than delving deep into each technique, it should state the different methods of VoIP (SIP & RTP, MSN messenger, Skype, H.323, etc.) and show the various UA devices which are used (like TopCom Skype phones, CISCO ATA 186s, CISCO 7960s, x-lite softphones, etc.).

At the moment the page is a random discussion of anything and everything that might be covered by the term VoIP... I'm happy to help you work on a new page. Just drop me an email or contact me through my talk page.

SimonInns (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just finished a major copy-edit of the VoIP page. I tried (as much as possible) to keep the original content of the page – I don’t agree that all of the content is necessary, however I didn’t want to be a one-man jury on what was and wasn’t needed.

I tried to improve and increase the number of inter-wiki links to other articles (and where possible reduced the amount of information repeated which was available via the links) and also removed obvious commercial spam and advertisements that had crept into the page.

I also rearranged the article into a more logical pattern; placing the adoption of VoIP at the top, followed by the benefits and challenges. All other information I moved to the bottom of the article. I hope this arrangement will help other wiki-editors to sift through the article and correct anything I missed.

There was also a large amount of repetition between the sections (mainly caused by the lack of organization). I removed the repetition wherever possible and concatenated the information into the relevant sections.

There is still a lot of citation gathering to be done for this article so I placed ‘citation required’ tags next to the ‘statement of facts’ that I saw (although there a probably quite a few that I missed).

I have not touched the legal section, nor the section on Japanese VoIP as I do not know enough about these topics.

SimonInns (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my list of questionable content remaining in this article. If there are no objections I will rewrite/delete the following text (note: my reasoning is in-line):

"A tragic example of a miscommunication with VoIP is the death of 18-month-old Elijah Luck in Calgary, Canada. In an emergency, 911 services were called. An ambulance was sent to the former home of the Lucks. The VoIP telephone company knew the correct address, as they were paying their bill from the correct current billing address the company had on record. "It's up to subscribers to ensure the company has up-to-date contact information" was the response from the VoIP company. After about a half hour wait, the Lucks called from a neighbor's land line, whereupon emergency services arrived in six minutes. Elijah Luck was pronounced dead at the Alberta Children's Hospital.[18]"

-- Although citated this doesn't really add anything to the VoIP discussion. The linked article even goes on to state that this was the failing of the owner of the subscription to update his E911 record rather than a problem with VoIP

"A voice call originating in the VoIP environment also faces challenges to reach its destination if the number is routed to a mobile phone number on a traditional mobile carrier. VoIP has been identified in the past as a Least Cost Routing (LCR) system, which is based on checking the destination of each telephone call as it is made, and then sending the call via the network that will cost the customer the least[citation needed]. This rating is subject to some debate given the complexity of call routing created by number portability. With GSM number portability now in place, LCR providers can no longer rely on using the network root prefix to determine how to route a call. Instead, they must now determine the actual network of every number before routing the call.

Therefore, VoIP solutions also need to handle MNP when routing a voice call. In countries without a central database, like the UK, it might be necessary to query the GSM network about which home network a mobile phone number belongs to. As the popularity of VoIP increases in the enterprise markets because of least cost routing options, it needs to provide a certain level of reliability when handling calls."

-- VoIP has never (to my knowledge) been identified as a least cost routing system by any definition of LCR. While it might make LCR decision making harder (like any other available route would) this statement is misleading and wrong. The complexity of LNP and MNP are no more pronounced for VoIP than any other voice communication method. This should be deleted.

"MNP checks are important to assure that this quality of service is met; by handling MNP lookups before routing a call and assuring that the voice call will actually work, VoIP companies must give businesses the reliability they look for in an Internet telephony provider."

-- MNP is important to ensure the called party receives calls... it is not really a 'quality of service' issue (QoS is usually more associated with voice quality). This statement should be rewritten or removed.

"In countries such as Singapore, the most recent Mobile number portability solution is expected to open the doors to new business opportunities for non-traditional telecommunication service providers like wireless broadband providers and voice over IP (VoIP) providers[citation needed]."

-- This statement is nonsense, MNP is not a value add in the network, it is a reglatory requirement to protect consumers. Perhaps LNP would be more correct in this case since it allows consumers to move to VoIP networks from the PSTN without changing numbers?

"While the wired public switched telephone network (PSTN) and mobile phone networks share a common global standard (E.164) which allocates and identifies any specific telephone line, there is no widely adopted similar standard for VoIP networks[citation needed]. Some allocate an E.164 number which can be used for VoIP as well as incoming and external calls. However, there are often different, incompatible schemes when calling between VoIP providers which use provider-specific short codes."

-- Most (if not all) VoIP service providers support E.164 numbering (and routing), otherwise they could not connect to the PSTN or route inbound PSTN calls. I suspect this comment is out of date and historical at best.

SimonInns (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the History section, consider crediting the inventors or VoIP: Alon Cohen and Lior Haramaty, US Patent 5,825,771 filed November 10, 1994 RTP is not a voice protocol, but a protocol that insures real-time delivery. T.48 is the FAX over VoIP standard To codecs, you can add these: GSM-full rate, GSM-half rate and GSM-amr. 206.29.176.74 (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How Do You Properly Spell Voice Over Internet Protocol

[edit]

I know this seems like a inane question, but for the sake of transcribing webcasts and webinars correctly, what is the correct or most accepted way to spell voice over internet protocol? We have seen: voice over internet protocol; Voice over Internet Protocol; Voice over internet protocol; voice-over internet protocol; Voice Over Internet Protocol; voiceover internet protocol. There has been much heated debate among staff about one or two words; which letters are capped if at all, etc. GHKWells (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)GHKWells[reply]

Although this is not a help forum, the article title has the proper format. The next best version would be to capitalize 'Over' as well, but this is usually not done in any of the 'something over another' protocol names Kbrose (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The correct capitalisation is to have the o lower case, the acronym therefore is VoIP, I dont think it matters in the text if you have Voice over Internet Protocol, or voice over internet protocol. Stuart Ward UK (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise here, as the word spells-out an acronym, Stuart Ward is largely right in saying VoIP (most common usage by IT professionals and usual publications [eg. newspapers/magazines/many news websites] stylistic choice to have lowercase letter o), however in the English language, acronyms are supposed to be all in caps, so you can also use VOIP as another option, as per your own preference. As for the first letter capitalisation, the same is true, and as it's a noun (the name of a group of protocols) it should be cap'd; either non-"o" as Voice over Internet Protocol (usual IT/publications spelling), or all as Voice Over Internet Protocol (proper English language capitalisation rule spelling).
Notice there are four separate words, as "Voice-over" or "Voiceover" means an actor (re-)talking over pre-filmed material in a studio or similar, which is something completely different. (ie. in this four word noun, it would mean doing some kind of talking over pre-filmed material, sent over the internet! lol. Ironically many actors do this on animation feature films; literally studio recording in one city their voiceover parts, and sending by internet to another city where the film is being put together!) Jimthing (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition in the Introduction section

[edit]

The previous content wasnt correct:

→VoIP systems usually interface with the traditional public switched telephone network (PSTN) to allow for transparent phone communications worldwide.[1]

I replaced it with the definition from International Engineering Consortium. Klapouchy (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Skype for Business". Skype, (C) 2008 Skype Limited. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

advantages of softphone over VoIP phone and ATA

[edit]

The article reads:

An advantage of using a softphone with a VoIP service provider is the ability of having a fixed phone number which can be moved to any country or location (This is also possible with ATAs and VoIP phones, although it requires the physical relocation of the hardware.)

Any voip solution is identical in this respect: they are agnostic about their geographical location. You don't have to physically relocate a voip phone or ATA to enjoy these advantages. You can alternately just use a second ATA in a second location. And a softphone is no different: you have to either relocate your computer or install the softphone on a second computer.

So I'm deleting the sentence. -lethe talk + 01:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voice over Internet Protocol → Voice over IP — Commonest usage among consumers and the technical community. Pnm (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose changing the title of this page to Voice over IP:
  1. Voice over IP corresponds to commonest usage among consumers and the technical community (not jargon).
  2. To a reader unfamiliar with the concept, Voice over IP is less ambiguous and thus more descriptive. The article is about a group of technologies. Voice over IP unambiguously means a group of technologies for transmitting voice over Internet Protocol. No one will think it's a Protocol for Voice over Internet. Voice over IP is not a protocol. (In contrast, Hypertext Transfer Protocol is a protocol.)
  3. IP is extremely recognizable (c.f. IP address). Even if people don't know that IP stands for Internet Protocol, they know it relates to a computer network. (See also IP Address.)
The continued use of Voice over Internet Protocol by some bureaucrats, journalists, and marketers need bind our hands. Pnm (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"General audience, not just the technical community" is a better description of what I meant. -- Pnm (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just for the record this change had no discussion nor consensus. For a general audience full name are better than dubious abbreviations they may not know precisely, especially since many use IP instead of IP address. Kbrose (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so but Voice over IP is now the established title and reverting the move is not uncontroversial. Please use WP:RM before reverting again. --Kvng (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kbrose, for the fourth time, would you please put it back where it was and post a move request? – Pnm (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it myself. Please join in the discussion below. – Pnm (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References flag still needed?

[edit]

This article has close to 60 references. Does it still need a flag for more sources? Anneaholaward (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - actually it's 65! If that's not enough references, then what would be?! Anneaholaward (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this thread. As of today there are 12 specific facts needing citations (see the [citation needed] throughout the article) and the Japan section is entirely unreferenced. The question of citations can't really be answered with a number, but there's some good reading at WP:V and WP:Citing sources. --Pnm (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about section: Fax handling

[edit]

The voice codec is not the primary reason of fax transmission failures. True, if you're using something highly compressed such as g.729, but as long as you're using G.711 - a or u law, which is the exact same codec as used in the PSTN. The problem with faxing over common internet based VoIP providers is the packetization of the internet. That along with your call audio getting handed off to distant wholesale provider's PSTN interconnets over the internet, and with many routers along the way to the PSTN interconnect don't always provide good enough QoS. Some very good VoIP providers do the PSTN coversion in-house so that your calls are sent to the wholesale provider off-internet, so providers like these can provide very good QoS. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical milestones section

[edit]

2004 — Commercial VoIP service providers proliferate

Why just 2004? Have they not proliferated in other years? This historical milestone, or at least the date to which it is confined, seems rather dubious to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.14.254.26 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Over IP

[edit]

VoIP or Voice over internet protocole also called internet telephony enables users to speak to other users over the internet. That is VoIP uses the internet (instead of the public switched tgelephone network) to connect a callling party to one or more local or long distance call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.80.81 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. When first coined, we used the term to refer to carrying voice over IP for some leg of a call: at that time typically through a modified PABX to a private internet gateway plugged directly into the PSTN over PBX trunks. — Dgtsyb (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem is that this article has been reworked bit-by-bit since 2002 without a major, unifying overhaul. As technologies converge, the technical and popular distinctions between IP telephony and consumer VoIP are growing faint. As the ILECs extend fiber networks throughout the middle mile and, in some places, the last mile, people with "analog" or PSTN POTS phones really only have copper until it hits the little box in their backyards. The national trend is moving towards an all-IP network, in which case "VoIP" will be nothing more than a telephony service provided by the non-LECs and IP telephony will be anything provided by the RLECs, CLECs, and ILECs. Alphachimera (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comcast hatnote

[edit]

The header of this article lists "Comcast Digital Voice", which is a blatant advertisement by Comcast. VoIP protocols are utilized by many companies and this article should remain neutral where patents are not a consideration.

Smaldonado (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote is there because the article about Comcast's VoIP product is at Comcast Digital Voice – even though the product was called Digital Voice – Digital voice redirects to Voice over IP. Looks like the product is called Xfinity Voice now. --Pnm (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remove the hatnote, it is commercial and confusing to readers (and probably some editors too). Easiest thing to do would be to point Digital voice to Comcast Digital Voice. I'm not familiar with the use of digital voice as a synonym for VoIP. --Kvng (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Kvng (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

gary turd

[edit]

The first paragraph of this article has these two words -- typos? mpeder

deleted as vandalism --Kgfleischmann (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

How does VOIP work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabincb (talk • contribs) 06:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voip on cell phone - mVoip or Mobile Voip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freecallshub (talk • contribs) 21:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP telephony

[edit]

I was wondering whether analog to digital telephone conversions may be mentioned in this article. A notable project is OpenUSBFXS, see also http://code.google.com/p/openusbfxs/

Some things I don't get on the project though:

  • is the old telephone number kept (ie 00 33 51 123456 or something like that; 00 --> prefix, 33 --> country code, 51--> area code, last 6 numbers the actual phone number OR

does a entirely new (VOIP) telephoen number needs to be taken ?

  • is the data tranferred via the old telephone line (POTS) or via a seperate internet access line (ie 56k, ISDN, ADSL or even cable, ...)

07:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.100.231 (talk)

Edit request from , 16 November 2011

[edit]

I would like to add http://www.modulis.ca as an external source in this article. Modulis is a leading Canadian VoIP Provider. Thanks.

Guillaume.steinmetz (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: External links should have additional information about the article subject matter. This is just a company that does VOIP installation. — Bility (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Voice over IP → Voice over Internet Protocol – Procedural nomination. – Pnm (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. For two reasons. "IP" has become so common in the technical world that there is no need anymore for writing it in full. Second, considering the non-technically inclined people, one must ask what they are most likely to look up. I'd say it's "VoIP" or "Voice over IP", as the latter is how you pronounce it, and as such "Voice over Internet Protocol" is the least likely option. Nageh (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – "Voice over IP" was the overwhelmingly dominant term in books until wiki-mirror books came along about 2007. Let's not add more positive feedback to that. The article has moved back and forth too many times already; leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ACRONYMTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. For background, this page was at Voice over IP from its 2002 inception until it was moved to Voice over Internet Protocol in November 2007 with (rationale: "full name"). In June 2010 I posted a request to move it back which garnered little discussion but no opposition, and the page was moved. There has been no discussion since then, but Kbrose and I have moved the page back and forth between these names, starting two months after the move discussion was closed. The article has spent roughly half the year at each name. If consensus is that the proposed name is better, it's worth moving again. One more move isn't going to hurt anything. Regarding the choice of name, "voice over IP" is the common name: the most widely used, and the most recognizable for a general audience. The abbreviation "IP" is widely used and understood, which makes it acceptable according to WP:ACRONYMTITLE. IP address uses it in the title as well. VoIP would be tolerable, but I think its use in popular media would fall short of the kind of wide usage and knowledge described in WP:ACRONYMTITLE. It's not as widely used as "IP." Finally, people unfamiliar with the subject might think "Voice over Internet Protocol" is a communication protocol, which it's not. – Pnm (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Definitions and other nits

[edit]

Very good informative article so please excuse me for the tiniest of nits.

"Premise" should be "premises". I know that using "premise" this way has become the technical vernacular, but it grates a bit.

The article takes care to define acronyms at the first use but there are a few exceptions (DSL, ADSL, QoE, PBX (although identifying PBX as Private Branch Exchange may not add clarity), PVC and TCP). Morganstein (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Morganstein[reply]

 Done --Kvng (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Web-based VoIP and Cloud telephony be merged into Voice over IP. I think that the all three articles really describe various aspects/stages of the same thing, and having three separate articles is unnecessary. Bensci54 (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - logical/obvious proposal. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where do you intend to put the merged material? Although it does not come out and say so, the current article is about replacing POTS with VoIP. The merges will expand the scope of the article. -—Kvng 14:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to add them into new sections, unless the current section affords an opportunity for information to be inserted within. Bensci54 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it as simple as that. For example, a lot of the material in the top-level Voice_over_IP#Legal_issues section applies only to POTS replacement. When you merge these topics in, we have to somehow clarify which types of VoIP these issues apply to. Similar issues exist in the Challenges and Adoption sections. I'm generally in favor of merges such as you've proposed but I also like to see improvement with every change we make. Just moving the source articles into this one as new sections would not be an improvement. Are we ready to do the work required to actually integrated the merged material? -—Kvng 15:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merger. I'm not sure what the best title is for a merged article, but Voice over IP is the best-developed article with the longest history, so the proper thing to do would be a merge to that article and then, if necessary, a subsequent rename to whatever we think is best. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support— the former is just a stub on an aspect of this article, and the latter is about the business around the former. Shirudo talk 02:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support different aspects of same topic. Article sizes don't warrant separate ones. Widefox; talk 17:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose None of the supporters have adequately addressed my question (above) about how this merge will be executed. I can't support until there is an answer. Mine is not a rhetorical question; I don't have an answer. -—Kvng 18:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Partial support" - Can't refute Kvng. Not usually a fan of merging, but in this case, I definitely am. So, what about a step-wise approach? First merge Cloud telephony into both and then see what you've got? Cloud telephony is linked from Cloud computing and I felt that, like many links in Cloud computing, it just sort of wasn't worth the click. It might have been worth it the click if Cloud telephony was merged with Voice over IP, though! Definite fan of merging Cloud telephony!!! Maura Driscoll (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merge of Cloud telephony into Web-based VoIP and then we can see what we've got. -—Kvng 21:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just tried to merge Cloud telephony into Web-based VoIP, and it did not work. The reason is that the intros in both of those articles did not correctly define the concepts.

  • Cloud telephony is a subset of Cloud communications; it means third-party, off-site VoIP services in general. This includes both web-based and non-web-based VoIP (it could just integrate with conventional telephones as a PBX replacement).
  • Web-based VoIP simply uses a web page running a multimedia applet or whatever instead of dedicated non-web VoIP software

I propose merging Cloud telephony into Cloud communications instead; they are both very short and weak and there is substantial overlap. I tagged both of those articles.

There is no section in Voice over IP into which to merge Web-based VoIP, since it defines a class of client software; though I did add an awkward link from the "Protocols" section. Clients are described at Comparison of VoIP software. Web-based software is included there but not necessarily marked as such. That's another potential merge target, but I don't have any problem leaving web-based VoIP as its own article for a while and letting it grow. It may be handy to just be able to link there from several other articles. I removed the merge tag from Web-based VoIP for now, but feel free to rekindle the debate if you see fit. -- Beland (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(And a good reason to have separate articles on specific aspects of VoIP is that Voice over IP is already at the maximum desirable length; there is not really the room to go into detail on either of these subtopics.) -- Beland (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support your proposal to merge Cloud telephony into Cloud communications.
I still think we should try to merge Web-based VoIP into Voice over IP and have restored the banner. I can see this working once some improvements are made to Voice over IP. -—Kvng 16:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this idea as voice over IP is currently an incoherent mess, trying to cover too much ground in a single article. This article should be an overview, with the excess detail spun off or spun out to subtopics. 66.102.87.61 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged Cloud telephony into Cloud communications as proposed by Beland.

There does not appear to be consensus to merge anything into Voice over IP. ~KvnG 02:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

In addition to the given statements under the "pronunciation" section, I knew a French-Canadian guy for whom French was his native tongue, and he would pronounce it "vwahp" ("-oi-" is pronounced something like "-wah-" in French.) Should a note be made in that section about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.28.10 (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a pronunciation note will be ideal because the "vuáh" pronunciation is not only used in French-speaking Canada but also in France, where it would be "voix sur IP" (pronounced "vuáh sur I-Péh", the word "sur" pronounced the same as the Spanish word meaning "South" and the letter "I" pronounced not as in "iPad" but as in "machine" or something like that, I'm not good at phonetic transcription) --Fandelasketchup (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated informations

[edit]

In this article, under Legal Issues -> European Union in last paragraph at the end there is quote "A review of the EU Directive is under way and should be complete by 2007." It should be either updated with the directive if it is completed, or update the date since it has passed 6 years since 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.125.70 (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VoDSL

[edit]

VoDSL redirects to Voice over IP but is not mentioned in the article. Technically it is a different mode though. --Ajv39 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like VoDSL can be VoIP over DSL or it can be something more akin to VoFR. Maybe convert VoDSL (back) to a stub. Here's a ref to get started with [2] ~KvnG 14:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Reference number 26

[edit]

I was looking at the page and clicked on reference number 26 and seen it does not rely tell me much beside wanting me to buy the book and also the date has a problem, I do not know how to fix it so I am going to leave it alone Jbegle (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the links 26 and 27 are promotions for the Mr. Stantons article and not really necessary. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will edit #26 and #27 and delete them. Jbegle (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Voice over IP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Voice over IP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write about voip performance indicators

[edit]

Hello everyone, I want to write about VoIP performance indicators like ASR, ACD, PDD, packet loss, jitter - measurement and testing. can I do it directly in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asv128 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An own article about VoIP/SIP-testing is a better approach. It should be no howto. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already tried that but the separate article got deleted. I am really disappointed with the wikipedia as the good content gets deleted. If youre saying that this is "advice" then why there is an article about "software testing"? Isn't is an "advice to test the software" ?? How can I write the content about the testing???? Looks like you guys think that VoIP is a plug-and-play thing and everything works with no problems Please respond. Does the VoIP really works in 100% of cases and needs no testing?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asv128 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Asv128: thanks for the contribution. It is usually best to start by contributing to existing articles. If you have any citations you can add to the new material, that would be very helpful. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too for not deleting my new content. I will add more citations, sure Asv128 (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The however person, - are you also the one who thinks this is a TEXTBOOK!?!?

[edit]

This is a digital encyclopedia, and it's written, and edited by anyone - who -hopefully, can contribute. I've run across something on various pages, which share 2 things in common; the (bizarre) obsession with the word, however - and (Almost always) on these same pages, it seems that (is it the same person?) there's huge sections which seem to be COPIED directly from textbooks. The way these parts are written include language typically found in textbooks, where the author(s) is engaged with the reader, almost (in some cases) as if they were a 'teacher',

'Thus, we can see', is a typical example. It's not natural English, and it's a dead-giveaway someone is copying from a book. I believe it's the same person as the person obsessed wit the word however, which - in a normal reading of an average page in English, one comes rarely across, but, whenever it appears here, on a WikIpedia page, there'll be many instances, and in the most odd places. Whoever this person is - it's obvious English is NOT your native tongue, because no one speaks like this, and writing here - in a language which is not your native tongue, as if this is a 'classroom', is disingenuous (looking over the note written directly above this, it too, seems to be written in the same stilted-English. I'm guessing that others do notice that this person - Asv128 - wants to contribute, but, doesn't understand the 'advice' which seems to have been proffered).

I don't think they're doing this maliciously, but, the effect is almost the same; hard to read, trying to decipher - in plain, clear English - what it is thy've tried to convey, but, by taking it from others. I'd recommend for you - who apparently wants to contribute, write on the WikIpedia which is in your native tongue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNOwenNYC (talk • contribs) 23 okt 2017 16:46 (UTC)

Legislation

[edit]

There should be a topic on legislation & regulations if they exists. 109.206.156.72 (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about reference number 85

[edit]

reference 85 relates to the milestone from 1991 regarding the release of "Speak Freely". it references the speak freely site which claims to have released in that year.

Should there be outside sources claiming that speak freely was indeed the first VoIP application or is their self claim enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.228.103 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That is not a reliable source. The statement should have a reliable source. Constant314 (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I've added the unreliable source template — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.228.103 (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re: Speak Freely. Brian C. Wiles, self published source

[edit]

Regarding this reversion, I’m not sure how the copyedits to ATTRIBUTEPOV to a WP:SPS are “promotional”. Claims sourced only to a claimants website shouldn’t be written as a fact in WPs voice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve simply removed it as it’s been tagged as an unreliable source for some time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There is probably some other stuff that should be removed. Constant314 (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1991 is early in non-experimental VoIP history so this is an arguably signifiant milestone. This article includes it in a short list. ~Kvng (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and maybe with this, it's enough to re-add it. (Which I did) - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The milestones listed on those references look like they were just copied from this list though. Did I miss additional sources given, or were there sources that predate the claim being made here? - 144.160.228.103 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same concern. This is probably Wikipedia's fatal flaw. Someone puts dubious info in an article. Someone else copies it and publishes it in a respectable publication. When asked for a reliable source for the original dubious info, someone finds the article that copied the dubious info from Wikipedia and voila, Wikipedia has generated a fact. Wikipedia becomes a source of fake facts rather than an aggregator of reliable facts. I don't see a solution. Constant314 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When verifying a source, you should check their date – ideally that predates the relevant portion of the WP text and is somewhat contemporary with the according event. In these cases, both sources are very new, so I'd not use them as RS. However, it'll get extremely hard to judge when a few years have gone by. --Zac67 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Croak

[edit]

I have removed this contribution because it does not make clear Croak's contributions. It arguably gives the impression that Croak invented VoIP. This is clearly not the case. No objection to mentioning her contributions but we need a better explanation of what they are. ~Kvng (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VoIP was developed by Marian Croak and her team at AT&T and over 100 patents are awarded to her on VoIP. She was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2022 for her patent on the technology.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Marian R. Croak Pioneered VoIP—and Now Works to Advance Responsible AI – The Elective". elective.collegeboard.org. Retrieved 2023-03-21.

~Kvng (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_over_IP&oldid=1251839915"